Custom White's Boots ... Thoughts?

[Mr.Chest]

Here is something I always wondered... if Bakers adds the Topy after the boot is made at White's, how does Baker's get the stitching to go through the Topy as shown above? It looks to me like the Topy was in place when the welt stitching was performed, but that would belie the idea that Bakers added the Topy post production...

Maybe I just spend too much time thinking about boots.

I’ve thought the same. I honestly am not sure. The finishing is super clean which makes it even more confusing

 

[Legal Eagles]

I’ve thought the same. I honestly am not sure. The finishing is super clean which makes it even more confusing

I agree with this... very clean... I cannot imagine White's sending a new pair of boots to Bakers, for Bakers to take apart, then apply the Topy, then sew back together, and have it come out as nice as your pair.

It is also hard to believe that White's would send an unwelted boot to Bakers simply to have them apply the Topy and sew things up... but maybe... it just seems terribly inefficient.

To me those Topys look as if they were applied at the White's factory before the welt stitching...

 

[andy b.]

This makes 100% sense ... except that adding or subtracting from the heel (or drop) of a running shoe doesn't change my perception of the arch support. I've never heard anyone suggest that it would. I wonder why so many people believe the heel height changes the support with the White's boots. At any rate, it's a relief that it doesn't really change the arch.

With the Vibram 100 soles, I wear the heels down until it is almost thru to the leather heel stack. That's almost 1/2". I don't notice any difference in how the arch feels with a new heel or old heel.
Maybe you'd notice it, maybe you wouldn't. I would guess it is more psychological than physical. LOL

 

[hoppy_IPA]

@andy b. & @paulraphael

I wear the 55 last almost exclusively. Having pairs with standard heel height & others with an added 1/4” I find it definitely noticeable in the arch. Conversely, a few weeks ago I decided to throw on a pair of Vans for the afternoon. It felt like I was going to fall over backwards! Perhaps not arch support related but man did it feel funny.

 

[wordfool]

Just received my second pair of my White's trifecta... BH in black dress to go with my brown dress SDs. I was under the impression that black dress was a teacore leather like the brown, but these are definitely not teacore which is a nice surprise. Build is pretty simple -- single celastic, medallion toecap, mini-vib sole, block heel, natural edge, antique hardware, yada yada.

Funny story getting these, however. There were some crossed wires with a couple of my back-to-back orders and Baker's thought these were the wrong leather so had put them up for sale on Ebay. For some reason (luck? a higher power?!) I stumbled across the listing and was puzzled that Bakers would be selling exactly the same make up and size I'd ordered before I'd received anything. So I emailed them and it all got sorted out -- turns out they were indeed my boots, which arrived today with a few nice extras from Baker's for my troubles. Once again, Baker's FTW!

First impressions -- they're even heavier than my SDs, something that has to be felt to be believed for someone used to Red Wings and lighter! The build and welt stitching looks pretty good, with the only cosmetic issues (they're White's boots after all) being some leather rolling/puckering around the side of one toe where it looks like the leather was not tensioned evenly during lasting (third pic), and some very drunk-looking stitching of the uppers (one example seen in second pic). I assume the puckering will become less pronounced as the welt/upper/midsole stretch and bed down.

Next up to complete my Whites collection will be some MP-M1 in black waxed flesh.

 

[klank74]

Just received my second pair of my White's trifecta... BH in black dress to go with my brown dress SDs. I was under the impression that black dress was a teacore leather like the brown, but these are definitely not teacore which is a nice surprise. Build is pretty simple -- single celastic, medallion toecap, mini-vib sole, block heel, natural edge, antique hardware, yada yada.

Funny story getting these, however. There were some crossed wires with a couple of my back-to-back orders and Baker's thought these were the wrong leather so had put them up for sale on Ebay. For some reason (luck? a higher power?!) I stumbled across the listing and was puzzled that Bakers would be selling exactly the same make up and size I'd ordered before I'd received anything. So I emailed them and it all got sorted out -- turns out they were indeed my boots, which arrived today with a few nice extras from Baker's for my troubles. Once again, Baker's FTW!

First impressions -- they're even heavier than my SDs, something that has to be felt to be believed for someone used to Red Wings and lighter! The build and welt stitching looks pretty good, with the only cosmetic issues (they're White's boots after all) being some leather rolling/puckering around the side of one toe where it looks like the leather was not tensioned evenly during lasting (third pic), and some very drunk-looking stitching of the uppers (one example seen in second pic). I assume the puckering will become less pronounced as the welt/upper/midsole stretch and bed down.

Next up to complete my Whites collection will be some MP-M1 in black waxed flesh.

View attachment 1399998 View attachment 1399999 View attachment 1400000

Nice looking boots! Is the heel on your SD's stock height or is it lowered? How do you like the commando sole? Thats what I'm thinking of going with on my first pair of whites.

 

[klank74]

I'm getting ready to do my tracings and measurements for my first ever build to send into Bakers and have a few questions.
first, I've tried printing their paper for the tracings, and try as I might, I can not get it to print the full picture. It keeps cutting off some of the pictures. Am I ok just tracing my feet on some blank paper?
Second, Baker's instructions say to use a pen or pencil, and hold it straight up. I'm assuming you just apply light pressure against your foot with the pen?
Third, has anyone had any luck doing the tracings themselves? Its just me and my two sons and I don't really trust them to trace them properly.
I realize I'm probably overthinking this, but this is what my first build and all others will be based off of, so I wanna make sure I get this right.

 

[wordfool]

Nice looking boots! Is the heel on your SD's stock height or is it lowered? How do you like the commando sole? Thats what I'm thinking of going with on my first pair of whites.

The SDs and BHs both have a standard height heel. I was actually surprised at how low the standard logger heel on the SDs was. All the talk of "cuban" heels had me thinking it would be taller and more pronounced.

I'm getting ready to do my tracings and measurements for my first ever build to send into Bakers and have a few questions.
first, I've tried printing their paper for the tracings, and try as I might, I can not get it to print the full picture. It keeps cutting off some of the pictures. Am I ok just tracing my feet on some blank paper?
Second, Baker's instructions say to use a pen or pencil, and hold it straight up. I'm assuming you just apply light pressure against your foot with the pen?
Third, has anyone had any luck doing the tracings themselves? Its just me and my two sons and I don't really trust them to trace them properly.
I realize I'm probably overthinking this, but this is what my first build and all others will be based off of, so I wanna make sure I get this right.

I did my own tracings, but had to buy legal-sized paper to print out the older-style templates (I think they have them angled now to fit on letter-sized paper). I was sitting, but in leaning forward I was putting some pressure on my feet. I think the key is consistency -- try to keep a consistent angle with the pen/pencil all the way round and try to keep the tip more or less in line with the edge of your sock. The tracings will never be a perfect representation of your foot (not least because you're wearing socks, or should be), but combined with the measurements and feedback on how other shoes/boot fit you I think it gives Kyle plenty to go on.

 

[Legal Eagles]

Just received my second pair of my White's trifecta... BH in black dress to go with my brown dress SDs. I was under the impression that black dress was a teacore leather like the brown, but these are definitely not teacore which is a nice surprise. Build is pretty simple -- single celastic, medallion toecap, mini-vib sole, block heel, natural edge, antique hardware, yada yada.

Funny story getting these, however. There were some crossed wires with a couple of my back-to-back orders and Baker's thought these were the wrong leather so had put them up for sale on Ebay. For some reason (luck? a higher power?!) I stumbled across the listing and was puzzled that Bakers would be selling exactly the same make up and size I'd ordered before I'd received anything. So I emailed them and it all got sorted out -- turns out they were indeed my boots, which arrived today with a few nice extras from Baker's for my troubles. Once again, Baker's FTW!

First impressions -- they're even heavier than my SDs, something that has to be felt to be believed for someone used to Red Wings and lighter! The build and welt stitching looks pretty good, with the only cosmetic issues (they're White's boots after all) being some leather rolling/puckering around the side of one toe where it looks like the leather was not tensioned evenly during lasting (third pic), and some very drunk-looking stitching of the uppers (one example seen in second pic). I assume the puckering will become less pronounced as the welt/upper/midsole stretch and bed down.

Next up to complete my Whites collection will be some MP-M1 in black waxed flesh.

View attachment 1399998 View attachment 1399999 View attachment 1400000

The puckering I could live with... but that "drunk" upper stitching from the second pic... I don't know... how did that ever get past QC at both Bakers and Whites? It likely has no impact on durability, but some things... once seen... cannot be unseen.

Did you send pics to Kyle? Did he say the stitching was acceptable? Are you going to be able to look at those boots every day without the stitching driving you nuts?

 

[klank74]

The SDs and BHs both have a standard height heel. I was actually surprised at how low the standard logger heel on the SDs was. All the talk of "cuban" heels had me thinking it would be taller and more pronounced.



I did my own tracings, but had to buy legal-sized paper to print out the older-style templates (I think they have them angled now to fit on letter-sized paper). I was sitting, but in leaning forward I was putting some pressure on my feet. I think the key is consistency -- try to keep a consistent angle with the pen/pencil all the way round and try to keep the tip more or less in line with the edge of your sock. The tracings will never be a perfect representation of your foot (not least because you're wearing socks, or should be), but combined with the measurements and feedback on how other shoes/boot fit you I think it gives Kyle plenty to go on.

They do angle them now, but my printer keeps cutting some of the picture off, even when i set it to print without margins. I'm hoping Kyle can come up with something based off of what fits me. Or what comes close to anyways. I've never found anything that truly fits me.

 

[wordfool]

The puckering I could live with... but that "drunk" upper stitching from the second pic... I don't know... how did that ever get past QC at both Bakers and Whites? It likely has no impact on durability, but some things... once seen... cannot be unseen.

Did you send pics to Kyle? Did he say the stitching was acceptable? Are you going to be able to look at those boots every day without the stitching driving you nuts?

I was certainly a bit surprised considering how long Baker's had the boots before sending them my way, but TBH I'm not convinced I'll ever have a "perfect" pair of White's boots. If I send them back and get a different cosmetic issue in return then ultimately what's the gain?!

My first pair of SDs I returned at Kyle's (and your) suggestion because the welt stitching was so gnarly that I worried that it might turn out to be more than cosmetic. The second pair were better, but still had some cosmetic issues elsewhere that I just decided to ignore. I guess I'm at peace with this additional White's "character". Yes, it's not ideal to spend $500+ on a pair of boots and have such basic things like upper stitching look like it was done during a major earthquake drinking session, but I don't plan to baby them so eventually they'll build up various scuffs, scratches and dings that'll eclipse minor cosmetic defects like this. Call it the "White's lottery". Apparently I'm not yet a winner. It'll be interesting to see if my luck turns with the MPs that arrive later this week.

Most importantly, I can't see the dodgy stitching or puckered toe when they're on my feet so that makes it more tolerable. I actually never noticed the bad stitching until I looked at the photos I took.

 

[Legal Eagles]

Upper stitching look like it was done during a major earthquake drinking session...

Nice... I was thinking more along the lines of the Stevie Wonder commemorative edition boots!

 

[wordfool]

Nice... I was thinking more along the lines of the Stevie Wonder commemorative edition boots!

Now you made me spend the last half hour looking through the gallery images here to see White's stitching prowess and it seems rare to find a pair of boots with perfect stitching. Granted, there are degrees of wonkiness, and my BHs perhaps fall on the upper end of that wonky scale in a few places, but I feel better knowing that four straight rows of stitches are rare and that the toe cap stitching on my pair is damn near perfect!

 

[discomute]

That took me a very long time to spot!

No way I'm going to check mine for those errors - what if they're there?!?

 

[Legal Eagles]

That took me a very long time to spot!

No way I'm going to check mine for those errors - what if they're there?!?

That is a fair point and one that I have made before...

If your market is loggers, smokejumpers, and farmer/ranchers, no one is going to look for or care about wonky upper stitching... if your market is to compete with Viberg in the $500+ fashion boot market, buyers will definitely care, and you must bring your "A" game. It would be interesting to see how an urban consumer in Japan (a big market for White's) would react to that upper stitching.

But, we have hashed this out several times before, and there is no need to beat a dead horse... everyone is different. For me, little peccadilloes or non-cookie cutter sameness is OK, sloppy work or inattention to detail, or poor final QC inspection (x2) is not... but to each their own.